[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3169-S3174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hoped to come to the floor today to
deliver a statement commending the Attorney General for her courageous
decision to do the right thing and request the appointment of an
independent counsel to investigate the fundraising violations in
connection with the 1996 Presidential election. Regrettably, I am here
today for a much different reason, to express disappointment and
frustration with her refusal to even initiate an independent counsel's
appointment.
I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General is under enormous
pressure from the White House, the Congress, the media, and the public,
and that she is in a very unenviable position. I have respect and
admiration for the Attorney General, but her refusal to do what the law
permits and indeed requires her to do, frankly, does not engender
respect or admiration in this instance.
The Clinton administration and the Department of Justice is trying to
cast her decision as a legal decision when, in fact, it is a decision
within her power, and in my opinion, one which she is ethically obliged
to make.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, pursuant to its
statutory responsibilities requested 33 days ago that the Attorney
General apply for the appointment of an independent counsel, I am
compelled to respond to what can only be characterized as her
inadequate response. In all candor, the substance of the Attorney
General's report is vague, ambiguous at best, and at times, legally
disingenuous. Especially in light of the fact that the committee
requested she evaluate and report on ``all of the information before
her,'' not just a few isolated allegations, the Attorney General's
report also is incomplete, and in a rather selective way at that.
A judge in a court of law would recognize the Attorney General's
report as a defense brief, too clever by a half, carefully and
zealously crafted to serve a client's interest. But the Attorney
General's client here is not the President of the United States or her
political party, it is the public. And the public's confidence that
this investigation will be fair, as thorough, and as tough as any
other, altogether untainted by political considerations, has not been
fulfilled. I am afraid this client, the public, has been disserved.
Given the evasiveness of the Attorney General's report, together with
the delay in its transmission and the fact that as the Attorney General
herself admits, ``much has been discovered,'' since the committee sent
its letter, I have little choice but to conclude that much to my
disappointment, the Attorney General did not receive our request with a
mind fully open to doing what is plainly in our Nation's best
interests.
Before responding to the Attorney General's report in more detail, I
feel I should briefly review what the independent statute provides for.
An independent counsel can be triggered in one of two ways: Where there
is sufficient information to investigate whether any person ``covered''
by the statute may have violated Federal law; or where an investigation
of someone else who may have violated the law may result in a political
or other conflict of interest. It is that simple.
Let me talk, No. 1, about the mandatory trigger of that legislation.
With respect to the first, the mandatory trigger where ``covered
individuals'' are at issue, the Attorney General's report does little
but make reference to legal ``factors that must be considered,'' and
then repeatedly draws the summary conclusion that she does not have
specific and credible evidence that a covered individual may have
violated the law. Despite the White House's characterization of the
Attorney General's decision as simply ``applying the law to the
facts,'' there is virtually no application of the pertinent law to the
pertinent facts actually before the public, let alone the facts before
the Attorney General.
While the statute requires the Attorney General to set forth the
reasons for her decisions with respect to each matter before her, in my
view she has utterly failed to do so here. To illustrate just a few
examples of the inadequacy of the Attorney General's response, let me
point out that she fails to specifically explain why an independent
counsel is not warranted to further investigate the abundant evidence
that covered individuals made extensive and deliberate use of Federal
property and resources for campaign purposes including, for example,
the Lincoln bedroom, and other areas of the White House, Air Force One,
and a computer database costing the taxpayers $1.7 million.
An authority higher than me and more independent than the Attorney
General needs to determine the scope of the various laws implicated by
this conduct and whether any of the laws were violated. The Attorney
General's somewhat evasive approach to this entire matter is aptly
illustrated by her argument that the use of the Government telephone
does not constitute conversion of Government property. I am sure it
does not. But as the Attorney General knows all too well, that is
beside the point. The allegations of misuse of Government property are
not based on phone calls.
Mr. President, the Attorneys General's evasive approach to this
entire matter is aptly illustrated by her argument that the use of the
Government telephone does not constitute conversion of Government
property. I am sure it does not. But, as the Attorney General knows all
too well, that is beside the point: The allegations of misuse of
Government property are not based on phone calls, but on the diversion
of resources, such as the White House, Air Force One, and the White
House database for campaign purposes, while phone solicitations were
not alleged to have violated the conversion laws, but rather the
prohibition on solicitations from Federal property. The conclusion I
cannot help but draw here is that, however involved the Attorney
General's career staff was in preparing this letter, in the end, it was
her political advisers who had the last word.
In short, the Attorneys General's carefully finessed and, in some
cases, deliberately irrelevant legal arguments, combined with her
summary
[[Page S3170]]
conclusions that there is no specific, credible evidence that a covered
individual may have violated the law, hardly persuades one that an
independent counsel is not mandated under the statute or, for that
matter that the question has been given a genuinely thorough and candid
evaluation.
Perhaps more fundamental, though, is the Attorney General's
altogether inadequate explanation as to why she will not request an
independent counsel pursuant to the second statutory trigger --to avoid
a conflict of interest. Here the test is quite simple: If the Attorney
General is presented with a conflict of interest in investigating
whether any individuals may have violated the law, she has the
discretion to proceed with the appointment of an independent counsel.
Try as the White House and the Attorney General might to cast this as a
narrow and technical legal question, it is anything but that; it is an
ethical one requiring sensitive judgment as to what is necessary to
ensure the public's confidence that an investigation can be supervised
by the Attorney General and completed in a thorough and impartial
manner.
In the past, the Attorney General has had a rather broad view of what
is necessary to protect the public's confidence that an investigation
is not compromised by any perception of a conflict of interest. In her
Whitewater independent counsel request, for example, Attorney General
Reno concluded that an independent counsel was required because her
investigation would involve an investigation of James McDougal and
``other individuals associated with the President and Mrs. Clinton''
would amount to a conflict of interest. It was that simple. In her
referral of the Nussbaum perjury allegation to the independent counsel,
the Attorney General concluded that a conflict of interest existed
because the investigation ``will involve an inquiry into statements
allegedly made by a former senior member of the White House staff.'' It
was that simple. And, testifying before Congress in 1993, Ms. Reno
stated that the Iran-Contra investigation ``could not have been
conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and concluded
with any public confidence in its thoroughness or impartiality.'' It
was that simple.
Indeed, the Attorney General's testimony at that time thoroughly
explained her rather strong view that even the slightest appearance of
a conflict of interest should at all costs be avoided by the
appointment of an independent counsel. It was that simple. She
testified:
There is an inherent conflict of interest whenever senior
Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the
Department of Justice and its appointed head, the Attorney
General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the
President. Recognition of this conflict does not belittle or
demean the impressive professionalism of the Department's
career prosecutors, nor does it question the integrity of the
Attorney General and his or her political appointees.
Instead, it recognizes the importance of public confidence in
our system of justice, and the destructive effect in a free
democracy of public cynicism.
Attorney General Reno further testified:
It is absolutely essential for the public to have
confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there
is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who
is, in effect, the chief prosecutor. . .. The Independent
Counsel Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of
impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct
by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent. . .
the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus
served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of
fairness and thoroughness in such matters and to avert even
the most subtle influences that may appear in an
investigation of highly placed Executive officials.
Now, in her report to the Judiciary Committee, however, the Attorney
General adopts a far narrower view of when an independent counsel is
called for. Suddenly, the conflict of interest provision has become a
complicated legal threshold which ``should be invoked only in certain
narrow circumstances.'' That is on page 3 of the letter to me. Directly
contradicting her own public statements that it is impossible for the
public to have confidence in an investigation where there is a
``conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, in
effect, the chief prosecutor,'' now the Attorney General claims that
her discretion is limited only to situations where there is an actual
conflict of interest. Quite frankly, the Attorney General's efforts to
distance herself from her 1993 testimony require her to render a rather
creative reading of her own testimony.
Allow me to suggest that, to the extent an independent counsel was
called for to ensure public confidence in an investigation of Mr.
North, Mr. Nussbaum or Mr. McDougal and his associates, one certainly
is called for here. If the Attorney General has adopted a new standard
for evaluating when an independent counsel is necessary to ensure the
public's confidence in an investigation, she should state as much and
explain the basis for her new position.
Although the Attorney General does not say as much in her letter, one
can only surmise that her position is that First, there is no conflict
of interest in continuing to investigate any of the individuals already
under investigation, that is, Huang, Riady, Trie, Kanchanalak, John
H.K. Lee, the Wiriadinatas, Charles DeQueljoe, Mark Middleton and
Webster Hubbell, and second, that there is no basis for investigating
whether other high-ranking officials may have violated the law. Since
General Reno fails to explain her reasoning, let's step back for a
moment and review some of the facts here to determine whether either of
these apparent positions can really be defended.
Take Mr. John Huang, the former Lippo executive whom the Riady's are
widely reported to have bragged was placed in the Clinton
Administration in exchange for generous donations by the Riady family,
whose ties to the Clintons date back to Little Rock in the 1980's. See,
for example, the New York Times, October 7, 1996. Recall that the Lippo
Group, Huang's former employer, is connected to a far-reaching network
of seriously questionable activities, directly implicating not just the
Riadys and Huang, but the other individuals that figure in this
troubling scandal, including Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Soraya
Wiriadinata, C.J. Giroir, Mark Middleton, Mark Grobmeyer, Wang Jun,
Charles DeQueljoe, and even Webster Hubbell. Since the Department is
already investigating Huang, there plainly are sufficient grounds to
investigate whether he may have violated federal law. In declining to
invoke the discretionary conflict of interest trigger, the Attorney
General's position, therefore, must be that there is no potential
conflict of interest in her investigating Huang.
Let's take a look at some of this. This is the ``Lippo Group, an
Overview.''
John Huang was a former Lippo executive in the United States. He had
a $780,000 severance package before he went to work for the Government.
By the way, before he went to work for the Government, for 5 months he
had a security clearance given him by this administration. There is a
question whether that was legal; a former Commerce official, multiple
contacts with Lippo during that time; former DNC vice chairman; raised
more than $3.4 million; $1.6 million is to be returned; and, he visited
the White House more than 75 times.
C.J. Giroir, a Lippo Joint Venture person, and a former Rose Law Firm
attorney, met with James Riady, President Clinton, and Lindsey on Huang
on his move to the DNC. He donated $25,000 to the DNC.
Mark Middleton, former White House aide from Little Rock, met with
James Riady and President Clinton; has Far East business interests;
unlimited access to the White House after his departure.
Charlie Trie, Little Rock restaurateur, had a $60,000 loan from
Lippo; former Lippo executive; arranged with a former Lippo executive
Antonio Pan, a Hong Kong dinner for Ron Brown; attempted to give more
than $600,000 to the Clinton's legal expense trust; visited the White
House at least 27 times.
I can go through all of these other people.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the description of each
of them be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Lippo Group--An Overview
John Huang:
Former top Lippo executive in U.S.
$780,000 severance package
[[Page S3171]]
Former Commerce Official-multiple contacts w/Lippo
Former DNC Vice Chairman
Raised more than $3.4 mill. (appx. $1.6 mill. returned)
Visited White House more than 75 times
Pauline Kanchanalak:
Thai lobbyist who worked w/Huang when he was at Lippo
Contributed $235,000 to DNC--all returned
Frequent contacts with Huang
Visited White House at least 26 times
Charles DeQueljoe
President of Lippo Securities in Jakarta
Gave $70,000 to DNC
Appointed to USTR advisory panel
Webster Hubbell:
Former Associate Attorney General
Received $250,000 ``consulting fee'' from Lippo--won't say
why
Wang Jun:
Lippo joint ventures
Chinese arms merchant
Senior Executive at CITIC & COSTIND (Chinese gvt. entities)
Attended White House coffee
C.J. Giroir:
Lippo Joint Ventures
Former Rose Law Firm attorney
Met with James Riady, Pres. Clinton, & Lindsey on Huang
move to DNC
Donated $25,000 to DNC
Mark Middleton:
Former White House aide from Little Rock
Met with James Riady & President Clinton
Far East business interests
Unlimited access to White House after departure
Charlie Trie:
Little Rock restauranteur
$60,000 loan from Lippo
Arranged (w/former Lippo exec. Antonio Pan) Hong Kong
dinner for Ron Brown
Attempted to give more than $600,000 to Clinton legal
expense trust
Visited White House at least 37 times
Mark Grobmyer:
Little Rock attorney--close friend of Pres. Clinton
Consultant to Lippo
Far East business interests
Met with James Riady, Huang, & Pres. Clinton
Soraya Wiriadinata:
Daughter of Hashim Ning, former Lippo exec.
Contributed $450,000 to DNC--all returned
Has returned to Indonesia
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's just take a look at the specific,
credible evidence that has surfaced to date. Huang, who received a
severance package from Lippo of $788,750 is reported to have:
Received a top secret security clearance that could have allowed him
to review classified intelligence documents, for 5 months while still
employed by the Lippo Group, and before he joined the Commerce
Department, all after a lax security check that was limited to his
activities in the United States;
Made at least 78 visits to the White House during his 18 months at
the Commerce Department;
Received 37 intelligence briefings on issues relating to China,
Vietnam, and other matters of potential interest to Lippo;
Made more than 70 calls to a Lippo-controlled bank; and received at
least 70 calls; 39 classified, top-secret briefings; 30 phone
conversations with Mark Middleton; 9 phone calls from Webster Hubbell;
received at least 9 calls from the Chinese Embassy officials. He had at
least three meetings with Chinese Government officials. He had a 1-year
top secret clearance after leaving Commerce after he joined the
Democratic National Committee. You wonder why national security
interests were compromised and why information was given to the DNC.
Like I say, he had 30-plus phone conversations with Mark Middleton or
his associates. All of them had interests--at least I understand had
interests--in the Far East.
He had his transfer to the DNC orchestrated at a curious September
13, 1995, Oval Office meeting attended by the President, Bruce Lindsey,
James Riady, and Lippo joint venture partner and former Rose law
partner, Joseph Giroir;
Raised over $3.4 million while at the DNC--money used to reelect the
President--retaining his top secret security clearance even though he
was no longer working for the U.S. Government; and had $1.6 million of
that $3.4 million used to reelect the President returned because of its
suspicious sources.
As we now know, John Huang has taken the fifth amendment, or has
asserted the fifth amendment, while the Riadys have not only taken the
fifth but they fled the country. Doesn't an investigation of Huang, so
close to those who are covered by the statute, and the Riadys, so close
to those who are covered by the statute who, like the McDougals, are
political supporters and ``individuals associated with the
President,''--to use the Attorney General's language of the past--
doesn't that raise a conflict of interest?
It isn't just John Huang. Here are some examples of illegal funds
raised by Huang: The Wiriadinatas, $450,000. They have returned to
Indonesia. All funds are supposed to have been returned by the DNC. I
am not sure that is true.
Pauline Kanchanalak gave $253,000. She left the country. She is now
in Thailand. Allegedly all of that $250,000 has been returned by the
DNC. I am not so sure.
Mr. Gandhi gave $250,000; testified he had no assets. How could he
give $250,000? All of those funds are supposed to have been returned by
the DNC. I am not so sure about that either.
John H.K. Lee. He gave $250,000. He has disappeared. And those funds
were supposed to be returned by the DNC. I am not so sure they have
done it.
Then Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple, $166,750 raised there. The temple
residents, many of whom gave part of this money, were people who had
taken a vow of poverty and had no money to give. Is there no illegality
there; nothing to raise a possibility that something may be wrong here
which is what the statute basically says? Supposedly $74,000 of that
was returned by the DNC. You mean these things aren't wrong and
illegal? You mean there is no conflict of interest here at all? If all
you do is look at Huang, you have to say there is something wrong here.
Then there is Mr. Charles Trie. Trie is a former Little Rock
restaurateur, and reportedly a longtime friend of President Clinton who
now runs an international trading company in Little Rock, AR. Mr. Trie
has also asserted the fifth amendment and has even fled the country,
along with these others.
He is a business partner with Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese Government
official. He received a $60,000 loan from the Lippo Group. He raised
$645,000 in questionable funds which have been returned by the DNC. He
raised $639,000 for the Clinton ``Legal Defense Fund,'' which was
returned because the source of the money could not be identified; or
the sources of the moneys could not be identified.
He was during this period receiving wire transfers of very large sums
from the Bank of China, owned by the Chinese Government.
He visited the White House 37 times.
He escorted Mr. Wang Jun, a Chinese arms merchant, to a White House
coffee last year, which, when revealed, was described by the President
as ``inappropriate.''
He wrote the President in March 1996 to question his decision to
deploy aircraft carriers to the Taiwan straits when the Chinese test-
fired missiles in Taiwan's direction, receiving a personal letter back
from the President assuring Trie that the United States only wanted
peace in the region; arranged a Hong Kong dinner for former Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown; and, finally, was formally appointed to a
Presidential Commission on Asian Trade in April 1996.
To the extent there was a conflict of interest preventing public
confidence in the Justice Department's investigation of Oliver North or
James McDougal, certainly the same conflict exists with respect to an
investigation of Huang, the Riadys, and Trie, not to mention the
handful of other individuals who have taken or will assert the fifth
amendment, fled the country, or done both, including Pauline
Kanchanalak, Arief and Soraya Wiriadanata, John H.K. Lee, and Charles
DeQueljoe. Frankly, there is even more of a conflict here.
Moreover, it has become clear that there is specific, credible
information providing sufficient grounds to investigate whether various
high-ranking members of the administration may have known of, or
conspired in, any of these apparent fundraising violations. Indeed, we
now know from the Ickes files that the decision to transfer Huang from
the Commerce Department to his fundraising role in the DNC was made at
the September 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting which included not just
Huang, James Riady, and Lippo Joint Venture Partner and former Rose Law
[[Page S3172]]
Partner Joseph Giroir, but Bruce Lindsey--who seems to pop up in all of
these instances--and President Clinton himself, and that a participant
at this Oval Office meeting reportedly recommended that the President
``reassign Huang from his Government job to a political fund-raising
job, where he could extract contributions for favors done and favors
yet to come.'' The New York Times, March 5, 1997. Mr. Ickes' notes
expressly indicate that Huang had specifically targeted ``overseas
Chinese.'' And it has been reported how this decision to transfer Huang
to the DNC, made at that September 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting, was
directly linked to a plan, agreed to just days earlier by the
President, Dick Morris, Harold Ickes, and others, to raise funds to
wage a preemptive television ad campaign. See New York Times, April 14,
1997. In short, isn't there sufficient information at least to
investigate whether any of these top-level White House advisers were
aware of or involved in Huang's and the Riady's far-reaching scheme to
launder foreign funds into Democratic campaign coffers? Does the
Attorney General expect the public to have confidence that she can
thoroughly and dispassionately investigate individuals among the
President's closest advisers without any conflict?
Similarly, there is now a wealth of information documenting the
extensive involvement from the President down through Mr. Ickes and
other White House advisers in the plans, discussed earlier, to use the
Lincoln bedroom, the White House, Air Force One, and the White House's
computer database to further campaign purposes, and that campaign
contributions were received at the White House. The Attorney General
claims she is ``actively investigating'' whether laws were violated.
Doesn't this investigation of these high-level White House advisers,
even if not covered individuals, present a conflict at least as great
as the conflict that apparently existed with regard to the
investigations of Mr. North and Mr. McDougal?
How can one say that there is no conflict when the FBI and White
House are publicly squabbling over whether the White House should
receive information about the investigation, and the Attorney General
is smack in the middle of this squabble; when the White House falsely
accuses the FBI of telling the National Security Council staff not to
pass on information regarding Chinese attempts to illegally influence
United States policymakers?
Indeed, the very fact that the FBI, an agency within the Justice
Department, refused to produce this information to the White House on
the eve of Secretary Albright's visit to China clearly suggests that
the investigation has already reached high up into the White House. It
is curious, to say the least, that the Department of Justice leaked its
decision to the press over the weekend, but it did not actually notify
the Judiciary Committee of its decision until 6:30 last night, 2 days
after this letter was due. Furthermore, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General's assertion that the fact that both Judiciary Committees have
made a formal request would emphatically not have any impact on their
decision suggests to me that the Justice Department is in a defense
mode.
In short, I think there is little doubt there is at the very least a
potential conflict of interest in having the Justice Department
investigate these matters. The administration should not be
investigating itself, it is just as simple as that, as long as we have
an independent counsel statute. Simply claiming to defer to career
Justice Department officials will not do. Would the public accept a
Member of Congress not recusing himself or herself from a particular
matter on which he or she had a major conflict of interest because
staff recommended they not recuse themselves? Would the public accept a
judge's refusal to recuse himself or herself in the face of a conflict
because a clerk advised against it?
The fact is that the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, has
simply, on the basis of its own audit, already identified over $3
million in improper contributions, violations of law, if you will. A
significant portion of this illicit money has not even been returned
yet, only confirming that this $3 million has already been spent, spent
to reelect President Clinton.
We have people calling for campaign finance reform on this floor. Why
don't we enforce the campaign finance laws that are already on the
books. That is what this is all about, in part, I have to tell you.
Three million dollars in illegal funds, illicit funds spent to reelect
the President, already spent. I wonder how Candidate Dole feels about
that.
The need for an independent counsel is not merely a matter of
applying the law to the facts. The chorus we are now hearing from the
President's press secretary and the Democratic apologists would seem to
indicate that that is so when in fact it is not. In my opinion,
Attorney General Reno was presented with an ethical question, a
question ultimately of whether the public can have confidence in this
investigation, whether the public can have confidence in this Justice
Department, and whether the public can have confidence in the Clinton
administration itself. Make no mistake about it. Attorney General
Reno's decision yesterday was a significant political event, one which,
much to my regret, will subject her to serious and I think justified
criticism. This is not a happy day for the Department of Justice or for
the public confidence in our system of justice. By continuing to permit
what certainly appears to be a very serious conflict of interest, the
Attorney General regrettably has, to use her own words, brought upon
the Nation ``the destructive effect in a free democracy of public
cynicism.''
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, that has already been
granted.
Mr. DURBIN. I was seeking recognition on the same subject. Senator
Hagel, I believe, is on the way up to join me for 10 minutes. This is a
separate request. Is it possible to do both?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
I would like to address the issue that the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee raised, and I am glad he stayed in the Chamber. I could not
disagree with him more. If this really is a contest over the
professionalism of Attorney General Janet Reno, I feel very confident
to stand by her. On four separate occasions, Attorney General Reno has
exercised the right to call for an independent counsel within the
Clinton administration, three of those counsel investigating members
appointed to the President's Cabinet and a fourth investigating the
Whitewater controversy involving the Clinton family itself. It is very
clear to me that Attorney General Reno is calling these as she sees
them.
Look at the situation that we now have before us. The Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich, leaders of the Republican
Party, all come forward and say that if Attorney General Reno does not
ask for an independent counsel, they are going do drag her up to
Capitol Hill, put her before the committee, maybe put her under oath,
and demand to know why she has not called for an independent counsel.
I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate the independent counsel
statute itself is hanging on by a slender thread if we try to
politicize this process and pressure the Attorney General into calling
for an investigation where it is not warranted.
Keep in mind the creation of this statute came from an era when
President Nixon fired Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor, the so-
called Saturday Night Massacre. The independent counsel statute was
created to try to put in place a third party or a dispassionate or a
detached approach to investigations. And now, because those in the
majority, the Republican Party, are dissatisfied that Attorney General
Reno has not called for an independent counsel, you hear all sorts of
comments about we are going to put the pressure on her; we are going to
bring her up here and put her before a committee to answer all these
questions.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield in just a moment. It just may be
a fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges which
the Senator
[[Page S3173]]
from Utah and other Republicans believe. Now, this Attorney General has
been involved in this investigation for a long period of time with 50
different FBI agents. If the newspaper reports are accurate, she has
basically said that she will turn to her career prosecutors to make
this call. I trust her judgment. I think we should trust her judgment.
Applying political pressure at this point on the Attorney General is
not in the best interests of a good investigation that may be necessary
and may lead to the appointment of an independent counsel.
I will be happy to yield.
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
Let us just make it clear to my colleague that this chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and Chairman Hyde over in the House, when many
people were calling for us to send her a letter, delayed and delayed,
giving the Attorney General a lot of time, nor have we been calling
improperly for her to act in any way other than properly. But it will
be interesting for people to know that we had scheduled our oversight
hearing for May 20 for the Attorney General to come in and to be
examined by the Judiciary Committee. I think for the information of
everybody who is here, she has agreed to come earlier than that, within
the next 3 weeks, probably in the first week of May, and at that time
she will have to justify this decision.
I think it is also safe to point out that I have been a very strong
supporter of the Attorney General and still care for her a great deal.
I do not like to see her subjected to this, but this is, to my
knowledge, the first time that the letters from thoughtful chairmen and
all the Republicans on both sides of the Judiciary Committee have been
rejected and I think under much more stringent circumstances than
independent counsel she has granted in the past.
So I personally hope she can assert why she has not decided to at
least conduct a preliminary investigation which would have triggered
another 90 days to do this. I suggested to her and to the Justice
Department that she do that.
I also do not accept the--I am sorry; I will not take much longer. I
do not accept her assertion that she is relying on professional staff
members.
Now, I have a lot of confidence in the professional staff members
down there, but this involves a lot more than that and, frankly,
involves just how this statute is going to be applied.
When the time comes to reconsider this statute, I will be very
interested in working with the distinguished Senator from Illinois and
others to make sure that, if we are going to have a statute like this,
let us have it so it works, and, frankly, I have qualms about having it
at all. But since we do have it and since it does have these two main
methods of triggering the call for an independent counsel and the
appointment of an independent counsel, I have to say I am sadly
disappointed that she has not chosen to do that under these
circumstances. But I do understand my colleague at this hour rising to
defend Attorney General Reno. I am not attacking her personally. I am
just attacking what has been done here, and I think it should have been
done before.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah. I want to say this much.
If there has been any criticism of Attorney General Janet Reno in the
last 6 months, it is that she is too independent. There was a question
as to whether this President would even reappoint her because of her
independence, the fact she had named four independent counsel. That has
been the criticism of Attorney General Reno. She calls them as she sees
them. She is a professional.
She has made a decision today which the Republicans are unhappy with;
they wanted an independent counsel named in this case. But when she
named four previous independent counsel, they cheered--good judgment,
good work. Now, when she has decided not to call for one, they want to
bring her up to Capitol Hill, put her before the committee, start
asking questions: Why won't you bend to this pressure? I hope she does
not. I hope she calls it based on the evidence.
On a show that I was on last night, one of my colleagues on the
Republican side said, ``Hasn't there been enough time here? Shouldn't
she call for an independent counsel?''
This is not about time. This is about evidence, credible witnesses.
If they do not come forward with the evidence and with the testimony to
justify an independent counsel, I hope Attorney General Reno will not
bow to pressure here. I hope she will stand up for what she believes
in. And as a Democrat, I am prepared to accept her decision. I believe
she is professional enough that we can stand behind her. But we
jeopardize the future of this statute, and I think we ought to think
twice about it, by putting this kind of public pressure on the Attorney
General trying to push her in one political direction or the other.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Does the Senator from Illinois
yield?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had asked for an additional 10 minutes
on another topic with the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for just 90 seconds?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I would like to say this in response. I just spent 30
minutes laying out some of the evidence that I think clearly shows the
grounds for further investigation. The question is how can the Attorney
General continue this investigation within the Department without a
conflict of interest? I do not think she can. Again, I will cite her
testimony back in 1993.
She had a strong view that even the slightest appearance of a
conflict of interests should, at all costs, be avoided by the
independent counsel. She said this:
. . . there is an inherent conflict of interest whenever
senior Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by
the Department of Justice and its appointed head, the
Attorney General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure
of the President. Recognition of this conflict does not
belittle or demean the impressive professionalism of the
Department's career prosecutors, nor does it question the
integrity of the Attorney General and his or her political
appointees. Instead, it recognizes the importance of public
confidence in our system of justice, and the destructive
effect in a free democracy of public cynicism.
She further testified that:
It is absolutely essential for the public to have
confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is
conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is,
in effect, the chief prosecutor. . . . The Independent
Counsel Act as designed to avoid even the appearance of
impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct
by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent . . .
the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus
served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of
fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even
the most subtle influences that may appear in an
investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.
I really believe that the case has been made here. And, although I
still have very fond feelings toward the Attorney General, I think she
has made a tragic error. And I believe that this is not going to end
it. In the end, I think we would have been a lot farther down the road
had she applied for the appointment of an independent counsel.
Be that as it may, these remarks had to be made because they are
important. Either we are going to have a statute or we are not. As I
have said, I have never been a strong supporter of this statute. But it
is there and it has been used in prior administrations. It has been
used in this administration. And this case, it seems to me, is even
more overwhelming than some of the prior cases where it has been used.
I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, who has time at this moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the remaining
time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me just say in closing, on this
particular issue, before I move to the other with Senator Hagel, this
is a matter of the Attorney General's discretion. Whether that Attorney
General is a Democrat or a Republican, under this statute the Attorney
General is to gather the evidence, listen to the testimony, and decide
whether or not that evidence and testimony crosses a threshold to
suggest that a crime has been committed, either by a covered person in
the administration or a Member of Congress, or creating a conflict of
interest between the administration and the investigation.
[[Page S3174]]
If I listened and heard correctly, the Senator from Utah questions
whether or not an Attorney General, appointed by a President, can
exercise appropriate discretion when there has been a suggestion that
that President or his Cabinet be investigated.
What the Senator from Utah calls into question is more than the
judgment of any specific Attorney General. He calls into question the
very existence of the statute. I think there are many deficiencies in
this statute. I think we should address those, and perhaps reauthorize
it with some changes. Among those changes, I might add, is that if an
independent counsel is to be appointed, that independent counsel be
truly independent.
In the history of this statute, 15 independent counsels have been
named: 11 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 Democrats. This process has
been loaded to appoint Republican independent counsels. And how?
Because the three judges who make the appointment, named by the Chief
Justice, have created a daisy chain, where they are appointed for 2
years as the statute calls for and then reappointed for another 2
years. They keep coming back, over and over and over again, the same
people, making the same judgments about the appointment of independent
counsel.
I think this statute needs to be addressed. But, if we are going to
attack this Attorney General because she has to exercise her
discretion, believe me that is what the statute says that she must do.
She must look at that evidence, decide whether it is credible, and
decide whether to go forward. As unhappy as the Republicans may be with
this decision by the Attorney General, I trust her judgment. I trust
her professional judgment. If she says at this moment it is not
warranted, I think she is right. I will stand by it.
Should she change her mind at some later date, I will accept that
decision, too. But to call her up here and put her under pressure
because she has made that decision is a serious, serious mistake.
At this point I believe there has been a unanimous-consent request
for 10 minutes for Senator Hagel and myself to address another issue,
is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining of that
time.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mr. Hagel pertaining to the
introduction of S. 575 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this Senator inquires of the order of
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is scheduled to recess absent a
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as in
morning business for no more than 6 to 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________